User talk:Floquenbeam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield!

Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain.

--Friedrich Schiller

Speedy deletion nomination of Nancy Navarro[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nancy Navarro, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Floq. I know this isn't your doing, but I am not a happy camper right now. It's a damned fluff piece and I have tagged it for CSD. My gut is telling me this thing should be zapped with a generous dose of salt thrown in for good measure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Disregard the above. The recreation was done by an entirely different editor who had no clue about the recent history. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
All settled now, I think. While all this was going on, the user has emailed that they're OK with re-deleting the userfied draft. I've move it back to the article so the history is there, re-deleted, re-added the redirect, and (per the issue above) salted. If there's still anything that needs doing, let me know. Or, obviously, do it yourself, but then let me know what I dropped the ball on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

My decision[edit]

As an editor in the community, I plan to retire and have complete no-access to this account. I have reviewed looked at my contributions and yes I have lacked helping the community much. As you are an Admin could you get me (blocked/banned) etc on Wikipedia as I am not just leaving Wikipedia (as an editor)/ I will still be interesting in reading articles. but I am also retiring my email associated with the account. Do you recommend me putting the account on a disposable email? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBritishEditor (talkcontribs) 18:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

But then you're just going to create yet another account, right? If we're being honest? That seems pointless. Instead, stick with this account, which is not blocked, but stop screwing around. Read to your heart's content. And if you want to help out once every 6 months, or every day, or somewhere in between by making small useful edits that don't attract a lot of attention or aren't part of a lark, just do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For posterity: they kept lying, so I blocked them indef for trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for your support I appreciate that. How is 2001 17 I was born 1999 May 19 only 2 years younger so 20-2=18 years old. That’s it🤩 BrandoLikesMoney (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@BrandoLikesMoney: You're welcome. Your birthday was in May. Before that you were 19, after that you were 20. Her birthday is in October. Before that she's 17, after that she'll be 18. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I did something unusual[edit]

I made a request on ANI, or WP:Great Dismal Swamp. Need an admin to decide if something needs a revdel or not. It should not look like this. I was already told how disruptive I am, so could need help, - just look for my name, or a joyful noise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gerda,
From a quick-ish review, it looks like there are two issues:
  1. Is the English translation taken from the chabad website copyrighted or not?
  2. What should the page look like until that determination is made?
For the first, I wouldn't be able to judge without taking more time than I have to research. My first instincts are that the Hebrew text is public domain, but a relatively recent new translation copied directly from a website could very well be copyrighted. On the other hand, it might not be.
For the second, it's pretty clear that the tag should stay until that's decided. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is simply non-optimal sometimes; it isn't the end of the world if an article look hideous for a couple of days until a volunteer gets to it. If no one does so in the next day or two, I should have more time and I can look at it then. In the mean time, it's doing the reader a disservice de-linking links to that article in other pages, isn't it? You're taking away an opportunity to learn something, because you think the source of that knowledge looks ugly. I'd counsel patience. Wikipedia is a work in progress; sometimes it looks more like that than other times. Whether maintenace templates should appear on the article page or the talk page has been a disagreement probably 1 month younger than Wikipedia itself. That isn't going to get resolved today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I am puzzled by the tags and am about to head off to ANI. The editor seems to argue that the Hebrew text was copyrighted in 2019. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Who is saying that? I don't think anyone is saying that. If they are, I cannot imagine that's true. I'm assuming they're saying the translation is copyrighted (which may or may not be true, depending on who did it and when they did it). New translations of public domain material are not automatically public domain. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Just so that you know: It's not a WWW site. It is a late 20th century (volume 3 of Psalms was published in 1991) translation by Avraham J. Rosenberg of New York that comes in 24 volumes in paper form. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The argument is that the translation is copyrighted (not the Hebrew text). The question is: does it need a revdel. The translation is in the article since June 2018, and nobody complained until yesterday. I guess the website's copyright is simply updated every year, regardless of when the text was posted there. - I wouldn't mind a tag such as "The following section is under investigation because of a possible copyright infringement." But telling a reader from the start about "Blatant copyright violations" seems not just "ugly" but counterproductive to "learn something". Psalm 100 is possibly the best-known of all psalms, - readers will perhaps think we don't link the same way as not to Berlin and Finland. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It's over, in case you didn't see. Hundreds of edits (by Yoninah and all who followed in sometimes more than a year) hidden, looking suspicious. Hebrew now left without a translation. Anybody who knows one that could take the place welcome! (Not any free translation, please - we do have the King James Version - but directly from Hebrew.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Climate strikes[edit]

Thanks for the edit. Regarding your edit summary — WP:BRINT's "Good reasons to bypass redirects" section concludes with Links on the Main Page. In my opinion, one reason to do this is to facilitate use of the pageviews counter: anything on the Main Page will get tons of hits, and if we link to a redirect for an entire day, someone looking at statistics will understandably be confused by the fact that the page got far fewer hits than is common for something linked from the Main Page. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

That is the only rationale I'm aware of that actually makes any sense. I'm still not convinced it's important - when a page has been moved, the pageview statistics are inherently going to be messed up anyway - but I do appreciate someone saying something besides "because that's what our guidelines say to do". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


I'm not really comfortable with this. I understand you may be away for the weekend ... no rush, let's talk about it when you get back. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

[Came here to see if Floquenbeam had responded to my comment above.] Dank, what makes you uncomfortable? It sounds like Floquenbeam is saying "This is a moot issue, so no point in continuing the discussion", which in my opinion is entirely reasonable. Do you dispute the mootness or the "no point in continuing", or is it some other issue? Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Things have changed this morning ... among other things, Kevin has started a discussion at WT:ERRORS, so that's probably the best place to have this discussion (for the moment). - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Nyttend, I wanted to make the general point before getting into specifics. Feel free to respond to what I said there first, or you can ask your specific question there ... I need to avoid a wall of text that tries to respond to everything at once. Something more conversational will work better. I'm trying to avoid "this admin screwed up" in favor of "there's a process here that doesn't respect consensus ... so what's going to work best for everyone?" - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Dank, sent you an email. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)